 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Apache wrote:
> good stuff and the sound is very clear :)
>
> only the objective of the game isn't clear enough (yet).
>
> and now who's going to do sloyd^4 ?
>
>
hm, sloyd^4... like the pieces are moving themselves, thus introducing
time as 4th dimension? or were you thinking about a hypercube? that
would be rather brain-melting i think... sounds like fun :-D but it
would be hard to track the pieces that move in the direction of the
fourth dimension, cause we couldn't see them anymore...
bye,
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I got 58.
>
> - Slime
Dang 63.
AW
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Andrew Wilcox" <awilcox@unpuzzled!.com> wrote in message
news:405dea19$1@news.povray.org...
> Hmm, now I see those arrows. I think the faces of the cube should be more
> color apparent. It looks like you used a light source of the appropriate
> color for each face, but I can only see it now that i really look.
It might work better if I deepen the color of the light shade. Also, if I
make the cube just a bit darker as well. Thanks for the feedback!
--
- Respectfully,
Dan
http://<broken link>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Dan P" <dan### [at] yahoo com> wrote in message
news:405df07e$1@news.povray.org...
> "Andrew Wilcox" <awilcox@unpuzzled!.com> wrote in message
> news:405dea19$1@news.povray.org...
> > Hmm, now I see those arrows. I think the faces of the cube should be
more
> > color apparent. It looks like you used a light source of the
appropriate
> > color for each face, but I can only see it now that i really look.
>
> It might work better if I deepen the color of the light shade. Also, if I
> make the cube just a bit darker as well. Thanks for the feedback!
>
Of course, now I have research papers to write *sigh*.
Struts, here I come ;-/
--
- Respectfully,
Dan
http://<broken link>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The safest way is to let a server-side script replay the game and calculate
the score by itself. This creates some barrier that might prevent people
submitting a hiscore without playing the game.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Apache" <apa### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:405dfde9@news.povray.org...
> The safest way is to let a server-side script replay the game and
calculate
> the score by itself. This creates some barrier that might prevent people
> submitting a hiscore without playing the game.
That would definitely keep people from not playing the game to submit the
score. It would be an awful lot of work, though. There has to be a way to
just send a score and be absolutely sure it came from the script. The best
method I can think of is the HTTP_REFERRER method, but that one is crackable
too. There has to be a really easy solution that doesn't violate my first
promise to my users: "I will keep it simple." No matter what I do, though,
all a person has to do is sniff the communication channel between the
browser and server and spoof the message. So far, it looks like your method
is the only way to guarantee the person actually played the game. Does
anybody have some insight on how to do this without having the server-side
play the game? By doing so on the server-side, it introduces complexity that
may lead to failures.
--
- Respectfully,
Dan
http://<broken link>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
oh boy! i just realized that you can jump over stones and not just move to
adjacent holes :|
That explains however the great score-difference =)
I'm trying again now with my new knowledge...
Thies
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Beat this !
I got 54 =)
Thies
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hmmm, 58, too. I wonder if there's any shorter?
AW
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Beat this !
> I got 54 =)
>
doh!
AW
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
